VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates

El Blaze vs Goh

El Blaze vs Goh in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 53.4% of 3,386 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 10 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted3,386
Win rate53.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence57.9%+4.40.066382
Rectangle55.3%+1.90.467340
Open54.2%+0.80.767347
Full fence54.0%+0.60.797370
Octagon53.9%+0.50.842343
Breakable half fence53.8%+0.30.893359
Fence and open52.9%-0.50.899138
Half fence52.4%-1.00.691334
Single wall52.2%-1.20.646318
Low fence47.8%-5.70.035312
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 181. With a stage that survives correction: 13. Expected from chance alone: about 9.1.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

El Blaze's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.02 on 9 df, p 0.532

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.0%370-3.80.294+1.60.660+0.30.937+6.30.101+1.90.627+1.10.816-0.10.973-1.20.740+0.10.975
Breakable full fence+3.80.29457.9%382+5.50.143+4.10.262+10.10.008+5.70.134+5.00.314+3.70.318+2.60.489+3.90.289
Half fence-1.60.660-5.50.14352.4%334-1.40.719+4.60.239+0.20.960-0.50.921-1.80.641-2.90.450-1.50.688
Breakable half fence-0.30.937-4.10.262+1.40.71953.8%359+6.00.121+1.60.685+0.90.863-0.40.911-1.50.684-0.20.963
Low fence-6.30.101-10.10.008-4.60.239-6.00.12147.8%312-4.40.265-5.10.314-6.40.100-7.50.054-6.20.114
Single wall-1.90.627-5.70.134-0.20.960-1.60.685+4.40.26552.2%318-0.70.891-2.00.610-3.10.426-1.70.655
Fence and open-1.10.816-5.00.314+0.50.921-0.90.863+5.10.314+0.70.89152.9%138-1.30.799-2.40.634-1.00.837
Open+0.10.973-3.70.318+1.80.641+0.40.911+6.40.100+2.00.610+1.30.79954.2%347-1.10.769+0.20.949
Rectangle+1.20.740-2.60.489+2.90.450+1.50.684+7.50.054+3.10.426+2.40.634+1.10.76955.3%340+1.40.721
Octagon-0.10.975-3.90.289+1.50.688+0.20.963+6.20.114+1.70.655+1.00.837-0.20.949-1.40.72153.9%343
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 180. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 12. Expected from chance alone: about 9.0.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,443
Win rate51.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Rectangle60.5%+8.70.048119
Breakable full fence57.3%+5.50.155150
Fence and open55.2%+3.40.57067 ·
Half fence54.9%+3.10.437142
Full fence52.1%+0.30.943167
Octagon51.6%-0.20.953155
Breakable half fence50.6%-1.20.729170
Single wall47.8%-4.00.322136
Open47.6%-4.20.280147
Low fence44.0%-7.80.058134
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 158. With a stage that survives correction: 14. Expected from chance alone: about 7.9.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

El Blaze's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.57 on 9 df, p 0.239

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.1%167-5.20.350-2.80.619+1.50.782+8.10.164+4.30.456-3.10.665+4.50.429-8.40.158+0.50.931
Breakable full fence+5.20.35057.3%150+2.40.679+6.70.227+13.30.025+9.50.107+2.10.772+9.70.094-3.20.600+5.70.316
Half fence+2.80.619-2.40.67954.9%142+4.30.444+10.90.070+7.10.234-0.30.968+7.30.214-5.60.364+3.30.567
Breakable half fence-1.50.782-6.70.227-4.30.44450.6%170+6.60.256+2.80.627-4.60.520+3.00.598-9.90.096-1.00.854
Low fence-8.10.164-13.30.025-10.90.070-6.60.25644.0%134-3.80.535-11.20.134-3.60.546-16.50.009-7.60.198
Single wall-4.30.456-9.50.107-7.10.234-2.80.627+3.80.53547.8%136-7.40.319+0.20.976-12.70.042-3.80.516
Fence and open+3.10.665-2.10.772+0.30.968+4.60.520+11.20.134+7.40.31955.2%67+7.60.302-5.30.483+3.60.621
Open-4.50.429-9.70.094-7.30.214-3.00.598+3.60.546-0.20.976-7.60.30247.6%147-12.90.036-4.00.488
Rectangle+8.40.158+3.20.600+5.60.364+9.90.096+16.50.009+12.70.042+5.30.483+12.90.03660.5%119+8.90.142
Octagon-0.50.931-5.70.316-3.30.567+1.00.854+7.60.198+3.80.516-3.60.621+4.00.488-8.90.14251.6%155
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 152. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 11. Expected from chance alone: about 7.6.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,711
Win rate54.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Open60.7%+6.40.083163
Breakable full fence57.7%+3.40.294208
Breakable half fence56.6%+2.40.513173
Octagon56.2%+1.90.602160
Full fence53.8%-0.50.891171
Single wall53.7%-0.60.874162
Rectangle53.3%-1.00.765197
Half fence52.0%-2.30.527173
Fence and open49.2%-5.10.40365 ·
Low fence48.5%-5.80.118161
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 157. With a stage that survives correction: 11. Expected from chance alone: about 7.9.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

El Blaze's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.65 on 9 df, p 0.569

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.8%171-3.90.448+1.80.741-2.90.596+5.30.329+0.10.986+4.60.530-6.90.200+0.50.923-2.50.655
Breakable full fence+3.90.44857.7%208+5.70.268+1.00.837+9.20.077+4.00.443+8.50.231-3.00.554+4.40.374+1.40.782
Half fence-1.80.741-5.70.26852.0%173-4.60.388+3.60.514-1.70.758+2.80.701-8.70.108-1.30.806-4.20.439
Breakable half fence+2.90.596-1.00.837+4.60.38856.6%173+8.20.134+3.00.588+7.40.306-4.10.447+3.40.518+0.40.942
Low fence-5.30.329-9.20.077-3.60.514-8.20.13448.5%161-5.20.345-0.80.915-12.30.026-4.80.361-7.80.162
Single wall-0.10.986-4.00.443+1.70.758-3.00.588+5.20.34553.7%162+4.50.542-7.00.200+0.40.939-2.50.646
Fence and open-4.60.530-8.50.231-2.80.701-7.40.306+0.80.915-4.50.54249.2%65-11.50.113-4.10.569-7.00.338
Open+6.90.200+3.00.554+8.70.108+4.10.447+12.30.026+7.00.200+11.50.11360.7%163+7.40.156+4.50.413
Rectangle-0.50.923-4.40.374+1.30.806-3.40.518+4.80.361-0.40.939+4.10.569-7.40.15653.3%197-3.00.578
Octagon+2.50.655-1.40.782+4.20.439-0.40.942+7.80.162+2.50.646+7.00.338-4.50.413+3.00.57856.2%160
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 152. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 8. Expected from chance alone: about 7.6.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted232
Win rate56.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence70.6%+13.70.23617 ·
Single wall70.0%+13.10.21620 ·
Fence and open66.7%+9.80.6246 ·
Full fence65.6%+8.70.28332 ·
Breakable full fence62.5%+5.60.55824 ·
Breakable half fence56.2%-0.70.95716 ·
Octagon53.6%-3.30.70528 ·
Open51.4%-5.50.45837 ·
Rectangle45.8%-11.10.24824 ·
Half fence36.8%-20.10.06519 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

No stage in this matchup has been played 80 times yet, so none is tested or ranked.

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 23. With a stage that survives correction: 1. Expected from chance alone: about 1.2.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

El Blaze's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.14 on 9 df, p 0.424

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence65.6%32+3.10.809+28.80.046+9.40.527-5.00.724-4.40.744-1.10.961+14.30.231+19.80.139+12.10.342
Breakable full fence-3.10.80962.5%24+25.70.095+6.20.693-8.10.591-7.50.601-4.20.850+11.20.392+16.70.247+8.90.516
Half fence-28.80.046-25.70.09536.8%19-19.40.251-33.80.043-33.20.038-29.80.199-14.50.303-9.00.553-16.70.259
Breakable half fence-9.40.527-6.20.693+19.40.25156.2%16-14.30.392-13.80.393-10.40.658+4.90.743+10.40.519+2.70.864
Low fence+5.00.724+8.10.591+33.80.043+14.30.39270.6%17+0.60.969+3.90.858+19.20.184+24.80.116+17.00.259
Single wall+4.40.744+7.50.601+33.20.038+13.80.393-0.60.96970.0%20+3.30.877+18.60.174+24.20.107+16.40.251
Fence and open+1.10.961+4.20.850+29.80.199+10.40.658-3.90.858-3.30.87766.7%6+15.30.485+20.80.361+13.10.558
Open-14.30.231-11.20.392+14.50.303-4.90.743-19.20.184-18.60.174-15.30.48551.4%37+5.50.674-2.20.859
Rectangle-19.80.139-16.70.247+9.00.553-10.40.519-24.80.116-24.20.107-20.80.361-5.50.67445.8%24-7.70.578
Octagon-12.10.342-8.90.516+16.70.259-2.70.864-17.00.259-16.40.251-13.10.558+2.20.859+7.70.57853.6%28
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 20. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 2. Expected from chance alone: about 1.0.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.